Tag Archives: National security

PANDA’s Dan Johnson breaks down the most dangerous law in America in Santa Cruz, CA at the Freedom Forum March 19, 2014.

The PANDA (People Against the NDAA Mission Statement:

Our Mission is to nonviolently defeat, strike down, repeal, stop, void and fight the indefinite detention provisions, Sections 1021 and 1022, of the National Defense Authorization Act for the Fiscal Year of 2012, to fight for American civil liberties, to combat laws restricting liberty in the interest of National Security, to support current government officials that are doing so and to engage a younger generation in the politics of the United States so this cannot happen again.

I have to admit it is fun watching Obama and the dark empire’s credibility topple in front of the whole world. They’ve exposed their peace masquerading warmongering and have now been checkmated by the global community thanks to the Russians being such adept strategists. This is a very prescient time in history as the world’s collective voice is crying out with awareness at every level.

Just beautiful.

With awareness comes insight, power and conviction. These all grow exponentially and bleed into new areas of consciousness. It’s a chain reaction and now hitting critical mass as we’ve said all along. We will see this growing continually.

The Powers That Want To Be will continue to attempt to rage against the Light but the darkness cannot touch the Light – it only dissipates in the face and presence of Truth. That’s why lies and deceptive mental subjugation is their game.

That the exposure of these shallow freaks only gets more intense is an absolute thrill. Look at this fake Syrian “authority” shill getting exposed that’s rocking the establishment:

The Syria researcher whose Wall Street Journal op-ed piece was cited by Secretary of State John Kerry and Sen. John McCain during congressional hearings about the use of force has been fired from the Institute for the Study of War for lying about having a Ph.D., the group announced on Wednesday. Source

Reminds me of the Kuwaiti girl caught for lying about the incubator baby deaths. Doesn’t matter, they get their initial reaction and run with it.
You wonder why we’re all so mad?

President Barack Obama was widely ridiculed last week for his latest effort to quiet public unrest over his massive warrantless surveillance programs. As we discussed, Obama made statements on the program and Snowden that were disengenuous at best and viewed by civil libertarians as facially dishonest. His main “reform” was the rather laughable suggestion that his Administration, once again, would review itself and he would create yet another hand-picked committee to monitor his unchecked authority. While some of us said that Obama’s comments showed almost open contempt for the intelligence of the public and the independence of the press, nothing prepared us this week for his announcement on who would head the review: National Intelligence John Clapper. That’s right. Clapper, the man who admitted to lying before Congress on these programs and has been protected by Congress and Attorney General Eric Holder from a perjury charge. The White House announced Clapper’s selection on Monday and Clapper issued a statement announcing his intention to find a way to preserve national security while “maintaing the public trust.” On Tuesday, the outcry over Clapper’s selection led the White House to try to backpedal and explain this insulting appointment. The White House now says that Clapper will not “lead” the panel and that it will remain “independent” even with his looming presence.

It was the latest outrage from America’s new Animal Farm system. His selection shows the low level of respect for voters in this city and the virtual absence of any fear of confrontation by either Congress or the press in this Administration. It is, to put it simply, a disgrace. Rather than being charged with a virtual admission of perjury, Clapper will review the very programs that he lied about. He is also the person who has been overseeing and using these programs.

The fundamental distinction between a legitimate national defense and an aggressive global garrison imperium, escapes the political elites. The War Party’s entrenched power and control of their egocentric internationalist foreign policy, endangers the country. Military expenditures have increased substantially this century with little regard to The Real Threat to National Security. The “War on Terror” is a tired excuse that keeps precision smart weapon dominance deployed, which shells suspect bombers with impunity. The technologists that develop and refine methods for more efficient killing machinery hardly earn the honor – defenders of the nation.

The mere suggestion that armed services cutbacks are unpatriotic or places the homeland in peril is an invented euphemism to disguise the true nature of the coercive global empire that has replaced our Constitutional Republic. The Economics of Sequestration points out that, “while many auditors would agree that the bloated expenditures within the military-industrial-complex has much to do with an adventurist foreign policy, the architects of sequestration refused to do a straight across the board reductions in all budgets.”

Judge Andrew Napolitano, saying on Fox Business Network earlier today that the Justice Department has “resisted in every forum” attempts to gain access to the legal opinions that the drone policy is based on. He said the government has persuaded judges that releasing the information could threaten national security.

“Suddenly it shows up in an NBC newsroom earlier this week! It could only have come from a governmental source. So they really have made fools of the federal judges who’ve spent hours and days and weeks struggling over the laws involved here,” said Napolitano, who called the document itself “breathtaking and chilling” because of the power it grants the government.

Slashing through the bland authoritative front the media have presented, people want to know more about the Sandy Hook massacre. But the elite networks have no intention of answering the most obvious questions.

Why? Because the follow-up agenda of gun control is all important, and the official Sandy Hook scenario must stand, in order to forward that agenda.

Any return to the scene of the crime will:

divert media coverage from its all-out push to make guns into taboo objects of scorn, ridicule, fear, and hatred;

focus attention on reasons for the massacre that have nothing to do with guns;

engender deep distrust of the Sandy Hook police investigation and therefore, by association, throw into doubt the notion that law-enforcement personnel should be the only people carrying guns in America.

Here are 10 things the media doesn’t want to know about and has no intention of investigating. These are only the basics, amid a wider sea of unanswered questions:

Where is the video footage from inside the Sandy Hook Elementary School, footage that surely exists and shows some part of the massacre? Who has that video record? What does the video reveal? Where is the video (or photo) evidence that Adam Lanza was the shooter?

How did the accused killer, Lanza, gain entrance to the school? Having just installed a new security system that required outside (and presumably heavy) doors to be locked, and with a procedure for entry that demanded two-way video communication with the principal’s office—what exactly happened?

The FBI records the emails of nearly all US citizens, including members of congress, according to NSA whistleblower William Binney. In an interview with RT, he warned that the government can use this information against anyone.

Binney, one of the best mathematicians and code breakers in the history of the National Security Agency, resigned in 2001. He claimed he no longer wanted to be associated with alleged violations of the Constitution, such as how the FBI engages in widespread and pervasive surveillance through powerful devices called ‘Naris.’

This year, Binney received the Callaway award, an annual prize that recognizes those who champion constitutional rights and American values at great risk to their personal or professional lives.

RT: In light of the Petraeus/Allen scandal while the public is so focused on the details of their family drama, one may argue that the real scandal in this whole story is the power, the reach of the surveillance state. I mean if we take General Allen – thousands of his personal e-mails have been sifted through private correspondence. It’s not like any of those men was planning an attack on America. Does the scandal prove the notion that there is no such thing as privacy in a surveillance state?

The global elite boldly advance their world government agenda into America’s National Security Strategy.

Since Obama took office in 2009, political analysts and mainstream media pundits have failed to accurately identify any central ideology or grand strategy driving the administration’s policies. The government’s National Security Strategy Report has been the most likely place to find such a doctrine expressed officially, but when Obama’s administration issued their version in 2010, the mainstream media failed to bring to light the real agenda conveyed in the document. The establishment media’s general interpretation was that the strategy represented a shift away from past policies of unilateralism, preemptive warfare, and military preeminence, towards policies of greater cooperation with international institutions. But an independent examination of the report, along with some of its guidelines now in operation, reveals that the document’s primary policy positions, while setting new precedents, are derived from an old, deep rooted agenda for a world empire, propelled by elite finance oligarchs and global corporatists. The document centers around the building of a new “international order” by overhauling, revitalizing and granting more authority to international institutions including the IMF, WTO, NATO, G20, the World Bank and especially the UN.

Decoding the 2010 National Security Strategy

In May of 2010, during presentations introducing and summarizing the new National Security Strategy Report, President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke of shaping an international order that would emphasize the role of global institutions in national security policy. While speaking at the Brookings Institute, Clinton listed this new international order as one of the government’s four central goals, saying “Our approach is to build the diverse sources of American power at home and to shape the global system so that it is more conducive to meeting our overriding objectives: security, prosperity, the explanation and spread of our values, and a just and sustainable international order.” Obama had used similar language a few days earlier at West Point saying, “So we have to shape an international order that can meet the challenges of our generation” and “The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times…”

Hearing the president speak of shaping a new international order as part of America’s National Security Strategy alarmed those in the alternative media who recognized the phrasing as a familiar reference to the Anglo-American elite’s efforts at establishing a world empire or “new world order.” The mainstream media, however, made no connections to a long term elitist agenda and instead framed the speech by contrasting Obama’s new strategy with those released under the Bush administration. The Washington Post claimed that “Obama pledged to shape a new ‘international order’ based on diplomacy and engagement” which distanced itself from the Bush Doctrine of preemptive warfare. But when the document was later released, its contents proved to justify the concerns of so called “conspiracy theorists.” Rather than simply promoting global cooperation or representing a positive new direction in policy, the strategy is instead a bold jump forward in the overarching, multi administration spanning agenda of global finance oligarchs to construct a world government. The fact that this agenda has now openly emerged in America’s National Security Strategy doctrine illustrates the advanced degree to which this scheme has progressed outside public awareness, without any public discussion or debate.